Reconsidering Life Domains that Contribute to Subjective Well-Being Among Adolescents with Data from Three Countries
- 705 Downloads
Several theoretical models and testing procedures are presented with the aim of identifying the most relevant items and domains to include in a model for evaluating adolescents’ subjective well-being, above and beyond those usually included in adults’ scales. Data were collected in three countries based on a list of 30 items regarding adolescents’ satisfaction with different domains or facets of life. Responses to these 30 items (including Personal Well-Being Index and Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale items) have been analysed by means of Confirmatory Factor Analysis using different Structural Equation Models (SEM) on a pooled sample comprising 5,316 twelve to sixteen-year-olds from Spain, Brazil and Chile. Several models have shown good enough fit statistics. A model using 14 items shows excellent fit statistics and is conceptually coherent. However, the inclusion or non-inclusion of items related to satisfaction with religion or spirituality results in both advantages and disadvantages when comparing the alternative models analysed. The relevance of including these items may therefore depend on the socio-cultural context where data are collected and their inclusion makes cross-country comparison more statistically challenging. The 14-item model has also been tested using multigroup SEM in order to check comparability of data among the three countries. All things considered, multigroup models have shown good fit with constrained loadings, but not with constrained loadings and intercepts, suggesting we can compare correlations and regressions among countries, but not means. Additional multigroup SEM with the five age groups available from the pooled sample have demonstrated that responses—and means—are comparable across different age groups during early adolescence.
KeywordsSubjective wellbeing PWI BMSLSS Adolescents Life satisfaction Domain satisfaction Structural Equation Modeling Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Spanish data were collected with the support of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science grant SEJ2007-62813/PS.
- Arbuckle, J. L. (2010). IBM SPSS ® Amos™ 19 user’s guide. Crawfordville (Fl): Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
- Bălţătescu, S. (2006). Comparative results and psychometric properties of the personal well-being index—Romania (old and new versions) with an adolescent sample—a preliminary analysis. Retrieved May 4, 2013 from http://www.sergiubaltatescu.info/content/comparativePWI.
- Batista-Foguet, J. M., & Coenders, G. (2000). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Madrid: La Muralla.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Nueva York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
- Casas, F., Baltatescu, S., Bertrán, I., González, M., & Hatos, A. (2012a). School satisfaction among adolescents: Testing different indicators for its measurement and its relationship with overall life satisfaction and subjective well-being in Romania and Spain. Social Indicators Research,. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0025-9.Google Scholar
- Casas, F., Sarriera, J. C., Abs, D., Coenders, G., Alfaro, J., Saforcada, E., et al. (2012b). Subjective indicators of personal well-being among adolescents. Performance and results for different scales in Latin-language speaking countries: A contribution to the international debate. Child Indicators Research, 5, 1–28. doi: 10.1007/s12187-011-9119-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cummins, R.A., Eckersley, R., van Pallant, J., Vugt, J. & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective well-being: The Australian unity well-being index. Social Indicators Research 64, 159–190. (Updated in:http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/well-being_index.htm.Google Scholar
- Cummins, R.A. & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Proceedings Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp 74–93). Singapore: National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
- Cummins, R A., & Lau, A. (2005b). Manual: personal wellbeing index—school children, Cantonese translation. Third edition. Resource document. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/pwi-sc-chinese-cantonese.pdf.
- Cummins, R. A., & Weinberg, M. K. (2013). Subjective wellbeing—multi-item measurement: A review. In W. Glatzer (Eds.) Global handbook of wellbeing and quality of life. Dordrecht: Springer (in press).Google Scholar
- International Wellbeing Group (2013). Personal wellbeing index—adult—manual, 5th version. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University. Retrieved on 10th August 2013 from. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/pwi-a-english.pdf.
- Rees, G., Goswami, H., Pople, L., Bradshaw, J., Keung, A. & Main, G. (2012). The good childhood report 2012. A review of our children’s well-being. Leeds (UK): The Children’s Society.Google Scholar